OUTGOING Finance Minister Shaukat Tarins remark that there does not exist any accountability law for leaders of the country is no revelation. It is common knowledge that our ruling circles, and those who can wield their influence, are prone to considering themselves above those laws that do not suit them. Hence, whatever laws exist to hold an errant leader to account, are not adhered to. And somehow the hold on power enables him to go scot-free. A recent and most glaring example of the flouting of the law of the land has been the governments persistence in avoiding the full implementation of the verdict of the countrys highest court on the NRO, on one pretext or the other. Other examples of illegal practices by influential persons would not be hard to find in our society. On the other hand, the ordinary people, who are not spared even for minor offences, obviously see the scenario as revolting. The relevance of Mr Tarins observation about the lack of accountability to a smooth functioning of political systems, or any institution anywhere for that matter, calls for comments. It needs no gift of extraordinary intelligence to conclude that it would easily lead to various evils, striking at the root of good governance. Mr Tarins statement also refers to bad governance prevailing in the country; one would be surprised if the resultant situation could have turned out to be otherwise. The ruling circles would tend to do their own interpretation of rules and regulations, or even disregard them, and would be apt to use discretion frequently, thus giving rise to all sorts of corrupt practices. Exceptions would be hard to find. Thus, we hear Mr Tarin talk of the prevalence of nepotism and the losing bargain of rental power projects. If democratic governments, as we have one in Pakistan, feel free of the constraint of accountability, they are no better than autocratic regimes. The usual declaration of our leaders that in case the people are not satisfied with their performance, they would vote them out of power in the next elections has its merits; the ballot, a basic tenet of democratic order, allows the voters to reject the leadership that has failed to deliver. But that does not mean that during the course of their tenure in power they could not be held accountable for any misdeed. If the present accountability law is in any way deficient, it should be amended to make it entirely impartial and transparent. One earnestly hopes that our ruling classes accept, in letter and in spirit, judicial decisions and develop the habit of strictly adhering to the rule of law. The people, across the entire social and political spectrum of society, have struggled to let the rule of law prevail. The leaders must realise the far-reaching consequences of their present behaviour.